nfreeman

Here's something on Kane that occurred to me: Kane was under a microscope and frequently criticized in Winnipeg. Yet until the December alleged incident in Buffalo, there were no accusations or even rumors concerning sexual assault. It seems a bit strange that upon arriving in a new city, having been given a chance at a clean slate, he would turn into a marauding rapist. Not impossible, of course, but not really logical either. As for the notion that the accusers in the alleged Bottoms Up incident were of questionable character, while the accuser in the alleged December incident was a "nice girl" -- wasn't there some indication that the 2 alleged incidents were related, and that the accusers knew each other? My point here is not to defend someone who assaults women -- of course, if that is the case, I want him gone as much as anyone else here does. My point is just that no one here knows any of the facts, other than (i) the BPD investigated both incidents, dropped one entirely and deemed the other one "non-criminal" and (ii) young athletes are frequently targeted by scammers, including female scammers. I think that Sabres fans, and posters here, should not be so quick to run him out of town. We need some facts.

I watched season 1 and didn't love it (understanding that most critics did). I'm out on season 2.

Here are a few examples from the past couple of days: All of these are obnoxious and insulting to those who disagree with you. And the answer isn't for others to ignore your posts. It's for you to improve your posting.

Both of you need to chill. I've stayed out of this thread in the effort to keep my BP down and my faith in humanity intact, but unfortunately have received multiple reports in the past few days regarding the 2 of you. K-9 -- your tone isn't quite as obnoxious as it has been previously, but it's still consistently the most abrasive in this thread. Do better or keep quiet. Hank -- your responses are over the line. If you disagree with K-9, explain why, with reasoning and facts. Cursing him out adds zero value to this thread -- just the opposite. I recognize that this thread is necessarily going to elicit passionate conversation, which is why there is more latitude here than in other threads, but it's still important to communicate in a respectful manner.

Not publicly. Anonymously.

Wasn't there something to the effect that the December alleged incident occurred in his car? And the cops searched his car, didn't find anything and so dropped it? That is a highly vague recollection though -- I could be completely out to lunch. Well, you're assuming away the whole "guilty or innocent" question there, innit? Bottom line is that we have no idea how he behaved or whether she is being truthful. It's certainly possible that he forced himself on her. It's also certainly possible that she is shaking him down or is PO'd at being told to get lost. Or a number of other scenarios.

Regarding the December alleged incident -- is there any evidence that supports the accuser's version of events? If so, why did the BPD decline to pursue it?

Well, I finally saw the movie "Draft Day" and against my better judgment, the shot of the field house and then the stadium got me pretty psyched. Then of course the inclusion of Russ Brandon, decision-maker at the top of the organization, brought me back to earth.

Good stuff yse and welcome!

Now that is some high-quality life advice. Well done sir.

...which perhaps indicates questionable veracity of the allegations. I've said this before, but I think we need to wait until the facts are in before making any determinations -- not just those that are legally justifiable in a criminal court, but determinations as to Kane's character. FWIW, whenever I've seen extended interviews with Kane, I've come away with positive impressions. I recognize, of course, that YMMV.

Glad you liked it! I really wasn't baiting you, nor do I think that poll is especially meaningful. I was just surprised, both at Trump being in the lead and by the margin.

LA Times: Trump 47.0%, HRC 40.4%. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-daybreak-poll-methodology-20160714-snap-story.html Holy mackerel. Also -- this is outstanding:

Just so we're clear -- this is because of the incident last year, in which no charges of any kind were brought and no specific allegations were made (let alone proven), plus the incident this year, in which we have unproven, unattributed and unresponded-to allegations that the police have decided are non-criminal in nature?

Fair point. I was referring to the description of events that was linked upthread -- I believe that's been the only public comment by any of the accusers, but I could be wrong.

The answer almost certainly arises not out of race but out of different facts in the 2 situations. Speaking of facts -- we still have no idea what they are. All we have are unproven allegations from an unnamed woman who was in a bar at 3:00 AM. Well, whether he made "mistakes" depends on what actually happened, which we don't know, innit?

I'm finally getting around to watching "People vs OJ Siimpson" and it is outstanding.

There was a reasonably positive discussion of the Bills on "Ballers" this week.

There is indeed plenty of jumping to conclusions going on around here, primarily from those in the "see no evil, fear no evil" crowd. Here's what we know: The killer was an 18-year-old Muslim male with Iranian citizenship. He reportedly shouted "allahu akbar" as he was firing. He targeted an archetypal Western civilization target in a McDonald's. 12 hours after the shooting, a member of one of the most politically correct governments on the planet said that as of the present time there is no known connection with Isis. That's what we know.

Do you think the world is safer now than it was 8 years ago?

And do you care to articulate your views or would you prefer to stick with shouting down the other side?

How so? Do you want to have conversation about the important issues of the day, or do you want to just insult those who disagree with you? Do you think your post about Trump pumping his fist after the latest police shooting was more disgraceful or less disgraceful than my post?

Another bloodthirsty Muslim mass murder attack today, and in a city and country with strict gun control. Perhaps it's not a gun control issue. Perhaps it's got abso-friggin-lutely nothing to do with gun control, and the bozo in the white house and his apologists are simply latching onto gun control in order to change the subject away from his historically terrible failure to address militant Islam. If you can't stand Trump, I totally get it. If most of your personal beliefs are more aligned with the Democrats than the Republicans, I get that too. But no one should pretend that Obama and Hillary have not made the world a much more dangerous place than they found it, and no one should delude himself into thinking it won't continue to get worse if Hillary wins.

And, since it's been such a long time since the last one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696410/Man-attacks-21-people-AXE-train-Germany-shot-police.html A teenage Afghan refugee shouted 'Allahu Akbar' before hacking at passengers during an axe rampage on a train in Germany - in scenes likened to a 'slaughterhouse'.

It's also worth noting that the Japanese were hardly a nation of innocent victims. They had a fierce and brutal warrior culture going back centuries and were good Asian analogues of the Germans. Many historians have argued that without getting nuked they would, in addition to bleeding the Allies for years without surrendering, have geared back up for more war promptly after any armistice, just like the Germans did after WWI. For anyone who's interested, there is a book called "The Rape of Nanking" that details the way the Japanese brutalized the Chinese (it's not an enjoyable read by any stretch, but at least it's not too long).